1983/03/15City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CIVIL ENGINEER: Joseph Titus
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Sister Rita Carroll, St. Anthony Claret Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Earline Jones introduced Kaylene Peoples, Miss
Anaheim/Miss America, 1983, who was accompanied by members of her court, Diana
Kraft and Teresa Nellesen.
Mayor Roth welcomed and congratulated Miss Peoples on behalf of the Council
and the City. He then presented her with roses and a briefcase with the City
Seal and emphasized how proud they all were of her having captured the title
of Miss Anaheim.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth welcomed the Anaheim Ministerial Association
who were present in connection with CROP Walk for Hunger to take place on
Sunday, April 24, 1983. Sister Rita Carroll and other members of the
Association thereupon accepted a letter from the Mayor endorsing the Walk and
accepting the position of Grand Marshal.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was
unanimously adopted by the Council and presented to §gr. Clement A. ~ramer for
bravery in the line of duty. On December 11, 1982, Sgt. Kramer was wounded in
the shoulder while pursuing two suspects. He returned their fire, striking
one of the suspects, causing a wound which eventually led to the suspect's
arrest. Mayor Roth and the Council Members personally congratulated and
commended Sgt. Kramer.
167
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Girl Scout Week in Anaheim, March 6-12, 1983.
Walk for Sight Day in Anaheim, March 19, 1983.
Stamp Expo Days in Anaheim, April 8-10, 1983.
Afghanistan Day in Anaheim, March 21, 1983.
Betty Lillas accepted the Girl Scout Week proclamation, and a member of the
Greater Orange County Chapter of the Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation accepted
the Walk for Sight Day proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held February 8, 1983~ Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,467,353.47 for the
period ending March 4, 1983, and $1,884,800.50 for the period ending March 11,
1983, in accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-80 through 83R-90, both inclusive, for adoption,
and Ordinance Nos. 4402 and 4403 for first reading. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Lena Anderson for personal property damages to
clock radio purportedly sustained due to a power surge at 921 Nordica
Street, on or about November 30, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Rowena L. Pebley for personal injuries and property
damages purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident on the
sidewalk located on the west side of Sunkist between Puritan and Powhattan
Streets, on or about December 31, 1982.
168
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
3. Claim submitted by Julia D. Olvera for personal property damages to
refrigerator purportedly sustained due to a power outage at 714 South
Illinois Street, on or about December 13, 1982.
4. Claim submitted by Mrs. Rebecca Esparza for personal property loss of
a ring purportedly sustained due to a one-inch opening in the concrete
beneath claimant's seat at Anaheim Stadium, on or about December 26, 1982.
5. Claim submitted by Simon Diaz for personal property damages to
refrigerator and television purportedly sustained due to an electrical
power surge at 628 South Illinois Avenue, on or about December 7, 1982.
6. Claim submitted by Georg F. Von Stiter for personal property damages
and losses purportedly sustained due to lack of electricity caused by an
error on the part of the City at 2001 South Haster, Apartment 34-D, on or
about November 18, 1982.
7. Claim submitted by Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Donna O'Donnell,
Insured, for property damages purportedly sustained due to a
malfunctioning traffic signal at State College Boulevard and Lincoln
Avenue, on or about January 10, 1983.
8. Claim submitted by Debbie Roberts for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to City tree roots blocking claimant's sewer
system at 1323 North Braeburn, on or about January 31, 1983.
9. Claim submitted by David Thomas Stephens for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to a fall at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
January 29, 1983.
10. Claim submitted by Leola J. Bowen for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to City use of claimant's water at 600 South
Clementine, on or about January 11, 12 and 13, 1983.
11. Claim submitted by Lyle DeVine for personal property damages to
vehicles purportedly sustained due to poor planning on the part of the
City at 1431 Castle Avenue, on or about November 29, 1982.
B. Claim allowed payment:
12. Claim submitted by Steven L. McMillan for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to failure of an eight-inch City water main
approximately 150 feet east of 67221 Trail Drive, on or about February 3,
1983. ($530)
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for
February 1983.
169
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of January 26, 1983.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 3, 1983.
d. 106: Controller of the State of California, statements showing amount
estimated to be paid to each city and county as its share of revenues to
be apportioned during the-fiscal year ending June 30, 1984, from the
following sources: Highway Users Taxes, Motor Vehicle License Fees and
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fees.
3. 108: Approving a Dance Permit submitted by John H. Ewell, Wounded Knee,
815 South Brookhurst Street, to permit dancing seven days a week from 7:00
p.m. to 2:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Acting Chief
of Police.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Horst J. Schor in an amount not to
exceed ~7,000, to do a planning and grading study of certain surplus property
at Anaheim Hills Golf Course, and waiving Council Policy 401.
5. 123: Authorizing a second amendment to Agreement No. D-78-148 with the
County of Orange for development of Peralta Canyon Park, to extend the term to
April 4, 1983, to allow completion of the project and appropriate billing
therefor.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Michael J. Arnold and Associates,
Inc., to serve as legislative advocate in Sacramento during the 1983/84
Legislative Session, at a cost of $2,083 per month, plus travel and other
expenses, commencing March 21, 1983 and ending December 31, 1984.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed ~18,000, for hydrogeologic services in connection with
hydrocarbon contamination in Well No. 31.
8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Advanced Control Systems in the amount of ~44,528.48 for one each Model 3050
remote terminal unit for Olive Hills Reservoir, and two each Model 3010
terminal units for La Palma and Linda Vista Reservoirs, in accordance with Bid
No. 3704.
9. 160: Accepting the bids of McGraw-Edison in the amount of ~41~087.72 for
one each 2,000 KVA transformer, one each 750 KVA transformer and two each
112.5 KVA transformers, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and General Electric Company in
the amount of $31,787.28 for four each 300 KVA transformers, Item No. 3; in
accordance with Bid No. 3945.
10. 160: Accepting the bid of Public Works, Inc., in the amount of
~31,943.10 for one Tymco parking lot sweeper in accordance with Bid No. 3948.
170
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
11. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DALE
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, BROADWAY TO ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 24-792-6325-E2900 AND 53-606-6329-17310-34310. (Bids to be
opened April 21, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLD
LINCOLN AVENUE, CLAUDINA STREET, PHILADELPHIA STREET, BROADWAY AND ALLEY
IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-E2880, FISCAL
YEAR 1982-83. (Bids to be opened April 21, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
13. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
LINCOLN AVENUE TRANSITION ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT AT OLD LINCOLN AVENUE, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-793-6325-E3680. (Bids to be opened April
21, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
14. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THE NECESSITY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
39576.5 TO CONTRACT FOR THE CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF ALL RANK GROWTH AND WEEDS,
AND REMOVAL OF RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL
PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALLING FOR BIDS
THEREON, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREFOR, ACCOUNT NO.
01-202-6320. (FY 1983-1984, bids to be opened on April 14, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
15. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE KATELLA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT,
HASTER STREET TO WALNUT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
24-793-6325-E3710. (All American Asphalt Company, ~150,326)
16. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-9A, a portion of a 6-foot unrecorded
electrical easement located north of Katella Avenue, west of Clementine
Street, public hearing to be held April 5, 1983, 1:30 p.m.)
17. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #2800-7, Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
18. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-506 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
(Crime Statistics Technician I and II, Schedules Xl122 and X1337,
respectively, effective March 11, 1983)
171
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
19. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD. (Police Officer file copies of parking and moving violations)
20. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION, BY ERASURE OR OTHERWISE, OF
RECORDED TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MAINTAINED BY A CITY DEPARTMENT
WHICH RECORDINGS ARE MORE THAN 100 DAYS OLD. (Utilities Department, for the
period beginning July 28, 1982, at 0650 hours, and ending November 4, 1982, at
0700 hours)
21. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Sanders Development Corporation; Cecil Robert Shirley, et ux.; James R.
Yates, et ux.; Christopher J. Meany, et ux.; Anaheim Redevelopment Agency;
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency)
22. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4402: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING SUBSECTIONS .220, .470 AND .1090, AMENDING SUBSECTION .250, .600 AND
.1040 AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .2080 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF
TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC. (no parking at
any time on certain portions of Cerritos Avenue, Jefferson Street, Miraloma
Avenue and Orange Avenue)
23. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4403: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
NEW SUBSECTION .020 TO SECTION 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (no stopping at any time on
Wagner Avenue, on the north side from Ambridge Street to Cedarwood Lane; and
on the south side from the east property line to the west property line of
Katella High School)
24. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Felipe Jesus Guerena, for Anaheim Dance Promotions, to hold a dance at the
Anaheim Convention Center on March 19, 1983, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., in
accordance with the recommendations of the Acting Chief of Police.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kayw00d, Pickler, 0verh01t, Bay and R0th
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-80 through 83R-90,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT WITH VAN DORPE ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM SOLID WASTE STUDY: The
City Manager briefed a proposed agreement with Hekimian Van Dorpe Associates
in an amount not to exceed ~36,000, to conduct a study of alternatives for
solid waste disposal and transfer, and appropriating $36,000 in Program 60-235
for funding for the project from solid waste collection fees, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 8, 1983, from James Armstrong, Assistant to the City
Manager.
172
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Councilman Pickler stated he was concerned that they were asking for a
consultant to give them information he felt they already had. He was aware of
Anaheim Disposal's activity to construct and operate a solid waste
transfer/recycling facility which he felt would have generated the same data
the City was looking for.
City Manager William Talley explained the reason they were recommending the
study that both Anaheim Disposal and Jaycox Disposal were supporting was that
in the event everything did not turn out as predicted, the Council would be
requested to reflect in City rates the cost of the activity. They were
interested from a multi-phased standpoint to see if the project would be
economically feasible and whether or not they should include more than one
contractor and if there were other methods they should also be considering as
part of the overall solid waste disposal program.
Mr. Bill Taormina, Anaheim Disposal, P.O. Box 309, stated he appreciated
Councilman Pickler's concerns. Anaheim Disposal was going to spend up to $5
million to make the project a reality, which in some unknown effect, would
have an impact on rates. It was their goal and conviction that the rates
would be lower, held constant, or be less than the County was charging. They
had a 100 percent confidence level that their plan would keep rates down,
lower than any other city. The City was aware of their track record, but they
were not an independent agent to judge themselves° The consultants would be a
third party retained by the City, the judgmental person who would confirm the
fact that they would be able to accomplish what they wanted to do and that was
the key issue.
Mr. H. Van Dorpe, Consultant, H. Van Dorpe Associates, Huntington Beach,
stated that they were pleased to have been selected as the consultant. He
explained that his associate in the venture was a nationally known expert in
the field of solid waste. They had also designed a number of facilities, some
of which were presently under construction. He felt that it was important
that the City conduct a study because it involved more than Anaheim Disposal;
it involved residential refuse collection and the impacts County activities
had on that function.
Council Members Kaywood, Roth, Bay and Overholt all expressed their feeling
that there was a need for such a study; Councilman Pickler reemphasized his
concern that he felt it would be a duplication of effort and the study and
cost of it was not needed at this time.
Councilman Bay then explained that some time ago he had talked to Mr. Taormina
relative to the possibility of industrial revenue bonds being utilized for
financing the project. He was interested in some feedback from Norman Priest,
Executive Director of Community Development, on what success they might have
in applying for industrial revenue bonding in what looked like a $5 million
investment that might affect rates. If they could use such bonds, they could
cut some of the interest costs on the investment.
173
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
City Manager Talley stated he would ask staff not only to explore industrial
revenue bonds, but any other methods of financing that might reduce costs
without taking away any of the tax advantage.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize an agreement with Hekimian Van
Dorpe Associates in an amount not to exceed $36,000, to conduct a study of
alternatives for solid waste disposal and transfer, and appropriating $36,000
in Program 60-235 for funding for the project from solid waste collection
fees. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickier voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
129: AWARD OF CONTRACT - FIRESTATION NO. 8 STORAGE BUILDING: A resolution
awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Alpha Omega
Construction Company, in the amount of ~57,062 for Fire Station No. 8 Storage
Building, Account No. 24-914-6325, as recommended in memorandum dated March 2,
1983, from the City Engineer, was submitted.
City Manager Talley briefed the March 2, 1983, staff report wherein it was
indicated that the low bidder, Alpha Omega Construction, alleged that an error
of $11,632 was made in his bid proposal due to not including the concrete
portion of the work. Accordingly, the contractor requested that the award be
amended to ~65,832. A Mr. Terry Remey requested to speak to the Council.
Mr. Terry Remey, 1851 Tympany, Pasadena, Vice President, Alpha Omega
Construction, stated they were requesting that the award of contract not be
made to Alpha Omega due to the human error in their tally on the bid. They
felt it would be unreasonable for them to accept the contract due to the
financial impact. He respectfully requested that they not be awarded the
contract and that the City Council not cause Alpha Omega to forfeit their bid
bond.
Mayor Roth pointed out that the new bid price would be ~65,832, adding the
$11,632 to the ~57,062 which was in error. He asked Mr. Remey if he would
accept the $65,832 amount; Mr. Remey answered that they would accept that.
Mayor Roth stated he felt they should modify the bid price to ~65,832 and
accept that amount, since it was still the low bid. He asked the City
Attorney's opinion.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated he believed this was a bid review by the
City Engineer and that the award of the contract would be as stated, that
Alpha Omega was the low bidder. However, he would like to delay the matter to
investigate it further to see if there was any problem relative to the award
of the contract.
City Engineer William Devitt stated he had discussed the matter with the City
Attorney and it was a joint recommendation that the contract be awarded to
Alpha Omega. There had been indication from the contractor that while they
preferred to have a supplemental addition to their contract, they wpuld
nonetheless accept it. However, Mr. Remey just indicated that they would not
accept i.t. It would also be his recommendation to delay the award.
174
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue award of the subject contract
for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED.
146: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT - SANTA ANA RIVER PROJECT - ALL-RIVER PLAN:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-91 for adoption, supporting the
All-River Plan to provide protection from the Santa Ana River° Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SUPPORTING THE ALL RIVER PLAN.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth added that he would like the
resolution sent to Congressmen Dannemeyer, Patterson and Badham. He would
also solicit any assistance from the Council in urging Congressman Badham to
support the plan. As of this time, he was opposed to it; Councilwoman Kaywood
suggested that a personal letter be sent to him signed by the Council.
Mayor Roth agreed and directed staff to prepare a letter accordingly, to be
signed by all the Council; Councilman Overholt stated he would go further than
that and also request the opportunity to meet with Congressman Badham or a
representative from his local office to express their concern for his support
of the project.
Mayor Roth stated the key date was April 7, 1983, when the issue was going to
be discussed in Washington, D.C. A number of cities were sending
representatives to that meeting.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-91 duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor then confirmed that a letter was going to be sent to Congressman
Badham by the Council ur~in8 his support of the plan~ and an attempt made to
discuss the issue with him or his staff before April 7, 1983.
184: CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY: Councilman
Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-92, confirming and ratifying the existence of a
local emergency commencing on or about 10:00 a.m. On ~{arch 3 and 10, 1983,
caused by storms, heavy rains and flooding. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CONFIRMING EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY.
175
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution'No. 83R-92 duly passed and adopted.
175: EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND TO HELP PAY FOR UTILITY BILLS: A
recommendation dated March 4, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board to
establish an Emergency Assistance Fund to help pay the utility bills of
qualifying needy citizens of Anaheim, was submitted.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated March 11, 1983, had
been received from the Chamber of Commerce, asking that consideration of the
item be continued to March 22, 1983, since their Board of Directors would not
be meeting until March 17, 1983. Also, Helen McConnell was present to speak
to the item.
Mayor Roth, referring to the letter from the Chamber, stated he did not
believe a one-week continuance would cause a problem. He asked Mrs. McConnell
if she would like to address the issue at this time or return in one week.
Helen McConnell, Emergency Aid Chairman for the Assistance League of Anaheim,
Post Office Box 4073, stated that Shirley Tripp, Episcopal Service Alliance,
or Yvonne Winston, Lutheran Social Services, could not be present today. The
Assistance League was strictly servicing Anaheim. They had been deluged with
utility bills and between the three organizations, they had been trying to
keep electricity and water on for those who needed that assistance. They were
probably aware that Gas Company monies and Edison monies were gone. The
system those companies used to ask people for funds they were going to match
was not that successful. The need was immediate and they were hoping to start
a fund the City would consider matching. She was aware the Chamber was
working on something, but she was not sure they were going to have the answer.
The Mayor interjected and asked Mrs. McConnell if she would be willing to be
present at the Council meeting in one week; Mrs. McConnell was willing to do
SO.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of establishing an
Emergency Assistance Fund to help pay utility bills of qualifying needy
citizens of Anaheim for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH PRC TOUPS FOR PREPARATION OF 1981-82 REPORT TO
BONDHOLDERS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with PRC
Toups Corporation in an amount not to exceed ~1,500 for preparation of the
1981-82 Report to Bondholders, as recommended in memorandum dated March 8,
1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
123: USE OF ANAHEIM "BIG A" DESIGN - VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, ANAHEIM POST
NO. 3173: Councilman Roth moved to authorize a license agreement with the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Anaheim Post No. 3173, for the use of the Anaheim
"Big A" design type service mark No. 832,724 for a cloisonne identification
pin for members of the Post and visitors, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 8, i983, from the City Attorney. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: REQUEST FOR HEARING BY SUBCONTRACTOR - CONSTRUCTION OF THE MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that
Tuesday, March 29, 1983, at 10:00 a.m. be the date and time for a hearing as
requested by Allied Electric Company, subcontractor, in connection with the
construction of the multimodal transportation terminal to be constructed at
Anaheim Stadium, as recommended in memorandum dated March 9, 1983, from the
City Attorney's office.
Before further action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if the matter could
be trailed until after Closed Session, since legal ramifications were involved.
The matter was trailed until after Closed Session; later in the meeting (1:35
p.m.), Councilman Overholt seconded the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 23, 1983, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2418: Submitted by Kyu Ho Yun and Young Sook
Yun, to permit a beer tavern on CL zoned property located at 507 South
Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-39, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2418, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2419: Submitted by National Empire Company,
Inc., to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 2801 West Ball Road, #5, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-40, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2419, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-22: Submitted by City of Anaheim, to establish
the Mobilehome Park (MHP) Overlay Zone on property located and presently zoned
as follows: (A) Midway Trailer City, 200 West Midway Drive, RS-A-43,000 and
RS-7200, (B) Anaheim Shores Mobile Estates, 1919 Coronet Avenue, RS-A-43,000,
(C) Friendly Village, 5815 East La Palma Avenue, RS-A-43,000, (D) Anaheim
Royal Mobile Homes, 1250 North State College Boulevard, RS-A-43,000, (E) Del
Este Mobile Estates, 1241 No. East Street, RM-1200 and ML, (F) Palm Lodge
Mobile Homes, 2627 East La Palma Avenue, RS-A-43,000, (G) Palm Lodge Trailer
177
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Park, 520 West Romneya, CG, (H) Rancho La Paz, 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue,
ML and PD-C, (I) Rancho La Palma Trailer Court, 825 West La Palma Avenue,
~-1200, (J) Romneya Mobile Homes, 600 West Romneya Drive, RM-1200, and (K)
Orange Grove Mobile Village, 1009 South Harbor Boulevard, CR.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-41, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-22, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-16: Submitted by the City of Anaheim, for a
change in zone from County of Orange A1 to City ML (Cerritos-Freeway
Annexation) on property located on the west side of Douglass Road, north of
Katella Avenue (Parcel 1), and on property located on the south side of
Winston Road, west of Sunkist Street (Parcel 2).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-42, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-16, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1557 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Raymond G.
Spehar, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1557, to
construct a restaurant with a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located on
the south side of La Palma Avenue, east of Imperial Highway, as a condition of
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2365.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-47, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1557.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2085 AND 2218 - TERMINATION: Submitted by
Angelo Casella, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2085 and
2218, to permit retention of an automobile detailing facility on ML zoned
property located at 3093 Miraloma Avenue, as a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2344.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-48, terminated
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2085 and 2218.
7. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11158 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anacal
Engineering Company, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No.
11158, tO permit a 9-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property
located on the south side of Martella Lane~ southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 11158, to expire March 8, 1984.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1229 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Emkay
Development Company, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No.
1229, to establish a storage facility for boats, trailers and recreational
vehicles on ML zoned property located at 2280 East Katella Avenue, as a
condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2257.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-49, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1229.
178
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-45 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Calvin
Meekhof, requesting an extension of time on proposed RM-1200 zoned property
located on the west side of Western Avenue, north of Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-45, to expire March 14, 1984.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
134: SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 183: Councilman Pickier moved that Tuesday, March 29, 1983, at 1:30 p.m.
be set as the date and time for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No.
183, to permit a.recycling/resources recovery transfer facility on 2.6 acres
located at the westerly terminus of White Star Avenue and bounded on the
southwest by the Riverside Freeway (91). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING ON VARIANCE NO. 3300 (READVERTISED): Affidavit of Merit
submitted by Wladyslaw Michalski in support of a request for rehearing on
Variance No. 3300 (READV.), to construct a 168-unit apartment complex on
RM-1200 zoned property located at 1231 South Palm Way, with Code waivers of
maximum structural height and permitted type of parking spaces. Variance No.
3300 was granted on March 1, 1983, Resolution No. 83R-79--see minutes that
date.
Mr. Wladyslaw Michalski, 980 South Harvard Circle, owner and general manager
of the Charleston Square Gardens, reiterated the reasons for his request for a
rehearing on the subject variance as outlined in his Affidavit of Merit, as
well as his letter of March 8, 1983 (on file in the City Clerk's office). The
day of the public hearing, March 1, 1983, there were heavy rains and he was
unable to be present because of the flooding and barricades that were placed
at certain intersections by the police. Since that was the case, and there
were other people interested in the matter, he would like to represent them
and ask the Mayor and Council for another hearing. They needed apartments in
Anaheim, but 168 units in that area would cause traffic problems on Palm Lane,
which was a narrow street, and unable to accommodate the additional traffic
that would be generated.
Mr. Michalski then explained in answer to Council questioning that he had not
attended the Planning Commission hearing on January 10, 1983, when the
apartment complex was originally approved. He also did not submit any letter
of opposition or call informing the City of their Opposition. His first
contact with the City was a few days after the public hearing before the City
Council. He called the Planning Department and was informed of their action
approving the project. He expressed his concern and was told the procedure
for requesting a rehearing.
179
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
MOTION: After further discussion and questioning, Councilman Bay moved to
deny the request for a rehearing on Variance No. 3300 (Readvertised).
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that even though March 1,
1983, was a wet day, he could not understand why Mr. Michalski did not phone
the City or make his concern known. Being the owner of 93 percent of the
apartment complex just south of the proposed complex, he should have
ascertained what was happening at the Planning Commission level. If the
process in zoning cases kept getting short-circuited each time, nothing would
be accomplished. The first time the matter was considered by the Council was
on February 1, 1983 (see minutes that date), when it appeared under the
Planning Commission Consent Calendar and set for a public hearing by
Councilman Pickler. He was not sympathetic to Mr. Michalski's concern at this
late date and, as Mayor Roth indicated, action was undoubtedly in progress by
the developer on the basis of their approval.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial. MOTION CARRIED.
173: RESOLUTION RELATING TO GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT:
Discussion on proposed Orange County Division of the League of California
Cities' resolution relating to general improvements at the John Wayne Airport
was held. (Continued from the meeting of March 1, 1983--see minutes that
date.)
Mayor Roth referred to a letter dated February 18, 1983, from Don Holt,
Resolutions Committee Chairman of the Orange County Division of the League of
California Cities, wherein he explained that the Committee combined the
resolution of Anaheim and Newport Beach, thereby generating a new resolution
which they felt offered a compromise. He (Roth) was asking Council's
direction so that he could take appropriate action at the League meeting on
Thursday, March 17, 1983. He wanted to be able to communicate with Mayor
Holt, indicating Anaheim did not prefer to consolidate the two resolutions.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to reaffirm their position on general
improvements at the John Wayne Airport and inform Mayor Holt that Anaheim did
not prefer to consolidate resolutions and that Anaheim's Resolution No. 83R-44
be presented separately at the League meeting. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he would hope that in
articulating their resolution, which he fully supported, that they were not
saying they were giving up the search for another site for an airport. He did
not think that there was anything that could be done to John Wayne Airport
that would provide for all of the needs of the County, and he felt their
resolution was based on that decree. He did not think they should support the
position that they should not be looking for another airport site in or out of
the County.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried unanimously.
180
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
179: SIX-MONTH REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2356: Review of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2356, to retain a used auto sales lot on CG zoned
property located at 1039 North Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces. A six-month review was requested by the
Council at the meeting of September 14, 1982--see minutes that date.
Submitted was a report by the Planning Department/Zoning Division.
After questions posed to staff relative to the limitation of the number of
vehicles on the lot, Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the staff report
dated March 7, 1983, and that the operation be reviewed in one year by the
Planning Department. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
148: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: Communication dated
February 23, 1983, relative to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
proposed rule-making notice disapproving the South Coast Air Basin's 1982
Nonattainment Area Plans for ozone and carbon monoxide and withholding of
Federal Funds for certain uses.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-93 for adoption, opposing the
imposition of sanctions by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency upon the South Coast Air Basin. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UPON THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-93 duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor requested that a copy of the resolution be sent to the City's
Congressional Representatives in Washington and California's United States
Senators.
170: MONTANERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: Mr. Steve Curcie, President, was
present to discuss drainage problems in the Silver Tree development, Tract No.
9217, located southeasterly of the intersection of La Paz Way and Anaheim
Hills Road (Mohler Drive area).
Mr. Steve Curcie, representing the homeowners of the Montanera Homeowners
Association, 225 Via Montanera, first submitted pictures to the Council
illustrating on both Sheet i and 2 the street problem at the site of the
Silver Tree development, isolated erosion problems and some recent patches
that had been made. Mr. Curcie then briefed the Council on the problems they
were having because of street design, specifically street erosion caused by
improper drainage and water control. He briefed his letter dated February 10,
181
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1983, 10:00 a.m.
1983, previously submitted to the Council, which explained the problem in
detail (on file in the City Clerk's office). They were now asking for the
Council's leadership in providing a solution to the problem. Every recent
development he knew of had some kind of drainage provisions. He did not know
how it happened that the City allowed their development to be built as it was
initially submitted, with no provision for drainage, considering that they had
much more slope area and water running down their streets than most
developments. The City Engineer had suggested all they could do was to
maintain the street. From their perspective, the Maintenance Department was
not keeping up, since they needed repairs once a month, or every other month,
and maintenance was done every six months. He reiterated, they were asking
for Council leadership in directing some monies to provide a solution that
would be lasting in nature to either provide concrete gutters, or a storm
drain halfway up the street, or a combination of both. He thereupon submitted
a petition containing 50 signatures of the residents of Silver Tree
development who were asking the City to effect a change in their street design
to eliminate continual nuisance water running down the middle of the street
(on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mayor Roth stated they were familiar with the area and explained that
initially, one of the main requests of the residents in that area was that it
be kept rural. At the time, they did not desire street lights, curbs, gutters
or sidewalks. It was then that Council Policy No. 207A was adopted
(February 6, 1973, revised December 23, 1975). Since the developers did not
have to install those improvements, it was supposed to have been reflected in
the price of their homes. In reviewing the staff report, they were in total
concurrence that something needed to be done, but the question remained as to
who was going to pay. Consideration was going to have to be given to setting
up an assessment district, so that the necessary work could take place.
Mr. Curcie stated that the fact still remained that other developments were
created under the same conditions, but the City stated that certain provisions
had to be met relative to drainage. In this case, they did not do so and he
did not know how that happened. The City had quoted it would cost
approximately ~200,000 for underground drainage up the hill, recontouring the
street and installing gutters to the top. He did not know if they had to have
improvements to that extent.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that was not a correct statement. The
estimate was based on taking curb and gutter all the way to the top~ with the
storm drain going up to the first bend only.
The following people then spoke, urging the Council to assist in providing a
solution to the problem: Mrs. Pamela Berry, 6191 Cielo Vista. She emphasized
the safety aspect involved. The street was wet today on a dry day, and it was
green and slimey. She felt the City did make a mistake when they approved the
development and it was the only one that had the problems; Donna Curcie, 225
Via Montanera, expressed the concerns of two other residents who had to leave
the Council meeting. Mrs. Curcie also pointed out that in circulating the
182
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
petition, several people expressed the fact that they would like to take
evening walks, but it was not possible to do so in the dark without street
lights. She could not understand why living where they lived and paying the
taxes that they paid that they had to have the kind of street that they had;
Mr. Ed Berry, 6191 Cielo Vista, noted the comment about the design of the
tract being rural. He maintained that it was not done correctly with regard
to drainage and he did not think that they should be "saddled" with the
responsibility.
The Mayor then asked the City Attorney to interpret Council Policy No. 207A;
City Attorney Hopkins first explained that the policy was adopted in 1973 and
revised in 1975. It was adopted due to the fact that residents in the Mohler
Drive area wanted to maintain that area in a rural atmosphere. It was his
opinion that under the policy, any improvements that would be installed would
be by the formation of a special assessment district°
City Engineer William Devitt then confirmed that the area was, in fact,
included in the Mohler Drive Area Annexation.
MOTION: Mayor Roth stated, since it appeared recommendation of staff was in
accordance with Council Policy 207A, he moved to receive and file the staff
report and correspondence from the homeowners, encouraging Mr. Curcie to work
with the homeowners and property owners and subsequently confer with City
staff to ascertain the possibility of formulating an assessment district to
consider the improvements. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mr. Curcie asked the course of action for a homeowner when
his streets were not maintained properly; Mayor Roth suggested that Mro Curcie
set up a meeting with the City Attorney for clarification on the issue.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4396 THROUGH 4401: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4396
through 4401, both inclusive, for ~adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
179/166: ORDINANCE NO. 4396: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTION 18.05.074 OF CHAPTER 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (to permit time extensions for advertising flags and
banners in the commercial zones)
179/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4397: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SUBSECTION .032 OF SECTION 18.32.062 OF CHAPTER 18.32 AND SUBSECTION .032 OF
SECTION 18.34.062 OF CHAPTER 18.34 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (minimum floor area required per dwelling unit based on
number of bedrooms)
ORDINANCE NO. 4398: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9(10), CL, 126 North
Brookhurst Street)
183
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
ORDINANCE NO. 4399: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-63(8), CO, southeast
corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard)
ORDINANCE NO. 4400: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-29, RS-5000, southeast
corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street--Cerritos-Freeway Annexation)
ORDINANCE NO. 4401: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-10, RM-1200, 304 West
Vermont Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4396 through 4401, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4404: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4404 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4404: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-17, CO, southeast
corner of Cypress Street and Harbor Boulevard)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel and labor relations with no action anticipated; the City
Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation, potential
litigation and personnel matters with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
~econded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:35 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2414: Application submitted by
North American Investments, to permit a beer and wine tavern on CL zoned
property located at 2424 West Ball Road, S and T.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-28, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration,
184
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the initial study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts, and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No.
2414.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Quy Viet Tong, Agent,
and a public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mro James Howard Poole, Attorney, 1940 North Tustin, Suite 100, Orange,
representing North American Investments, the owner of the subject property,
referred to his letter dated March 7, 1983, previously submitted (made a part
of the record). He then briefed tha Council on the information contained in
the letter, specifically Items 1 through 6, which he felt should be considered
by the Council in deciding the appeal. The major points of his presentation
were as follows: That at the Planning Commission level, there was a
considerable lack of communication and misunderstanding relating to the
applicant's request for a CUP, since Mr. Tong had difficulty with the English
language; that there were currently only two and not three establishments in
the shopping center with permits for alcoholic beverages; that the other two
businesses were clearly restaurant uses and not a bar or tavern; that the
subject proposed use, while defined as a tavern, was intended to be a
Vietnamese and Chinese restaurant with beer and wine and live entertainment on
Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings.
Assistant Director for Planning--Zoning Annika Santalahti confirmed for the
Mayor that Mr. Poole was correct, that there were two and not three businesses
in the center with alcoholic beverage permits. That was a concern of the
Planning Commission, as well as the close proximity of the proposed business
to a high school.
Councilman Bay noted that in the staff report it indicated there was to be a
579-square foot kitchen and in parentheses it stated (proposed to be deleted
by the petitioner). He wanted to know if that, in fact, meant that the
kitchen was going to be deleted; Miss Santalahti stated it appeared that was
being proposed.
Councilman Bay surmised then that the business was properly termed a tavern,
since they were going to serve beer and wine and were having entertainment.
Mr. Poole explained that was not the understanding when they agreed to lease
the premises to the applicant. He noticed that when he arrived at the meeting
and while he did not know that he would be adamantly opposed to a tavern use,
it was his understanding of the proposal by the applicant that it would be a
Chinese/Vietnamese type restaurant with beer and wine and entertainment.
185
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Councilman Bay wanted to know if the kitchen was going to be deleted; Mr.
Poole, after discussing the matter with the applicant who was present in the
Chambers audience, reported that when the question of the size of the kitchen
was broached in discussion with the Planning Commission, Mr. Tong indicated he
would delete, meaning either Vietnamese or Chinese food, but not the kitchen.
Mr. Poole stated if that was an issue, that was another type of restriction he
would not be opposed to, i.e., that the CUP be granted requiring a 579-square
foot kitchen. He was certain from what the applicant told him that he would
not object.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Mayor Roth stated he was
sympathetic with the applicant, because there appeared to be some
misunderstanding that could have led to denial by the Planning Commission. He
thereupon moved that the City Council finds that this project will have no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the
approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 83R-94 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2414, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission, and subject to the following Interdepartmental recommendations and
with a further stipulation that entertainment be allowed on Friday, Saturday
and Sunday nights only, 7:00 p.m. to midnight:
1. That the handicap access ramps and sidewalk be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to commencing the activity authorized
under this conditional use permit.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2.
3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2414.
186
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since the petitioner
indicated that live music would be performed from 8:30 pom. to midnight,
Friday through Sunday, that those hours be stipulated; Mayor Roth agreed and
added a further stipulation that there be a 579-square foot kitchen minimum.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like a condition added that the
beer and wine be served only with food, and that there be a one- or two-year
review.
Miss Santalahti stated that the CUP was being granted with a kitchen size of
579 square feet and in that manner, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission license
would be issued accordingly, beer and wine to be served in conjunction with
food.
Councilman Bay felt that was a critical point, since they were talking about
the difference between a beer bar and a restaurant. With a stipulation within
the resolution that beer and wine would be served in conjunction with food, as
called for by the ABC, he could support the proposal.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution with the added stipulations
clarified as follows: That entertainment be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday
nights only, 8:30 p.m. to 12:00 Midnight; that a kitchen of 579 square feet
minimum be maintained; that beer and wine be served in conjunction with food
as called for by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; that there be a review
of the business in two years.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None"
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-94 duly passed and adopted.
134/179: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 181, RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 82-83-15, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL: To
consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the
current hlllslde, low-~ens~ty resi~en~al an~ general open ~paee ~e~ignation
to hillside low-medium density residential on approximately 4.32 acres located
on the west side of Villa Real Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed portions of the staff report to
the Planning Commission dated February 23, 1983, relative to the subject
property, an owner-initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current
hillside low-density residential and general open space designation to
hillside low-medium density residential. The property owner proposed to
develop a townhouse project consisting of 25 dwelling units.
187
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC83-37, recommended
approval of Exhibit A, designating the entire area for hillside low-medium
density residential land use and, further, recommended approval of the
negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR on the basis that
there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impacts due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject property for hillside low-density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and the initial study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-15, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN
TREE REMOVAL: Application by the Presbytery of Los Angeles for a change in
zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC), to construct a 25-unit condominium
complex, and request for removal of specimen trees, were submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-38, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report due to the approval of this negative declaration
on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for hillside low-density residential land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to this
project, and further granted Reclassification No. 82-83-15, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
5. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on
grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative.
188
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities
will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site
drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall
have initiated condemnation proceedings therefore (the costs of which shall be
borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the
property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final
building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement
agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their
request.
6. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
7. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of a final tract map within
the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further time as
the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
8. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire
Administrative Order No. 76-01, will be met. Such requirements include, but
are not limited to, chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor
openings, Class C or better roofing material and one-hour fire resistive
construction of horizontal surfaces if within 200 feet of adjacent brushland.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City
Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. That the seller shall provide the purchaser of each condominium unit with
written information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code 14.32.500 pertaining to
"parking restricted to facilitate street sweeping." Such written information
will clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohihlted and the penalty £or
violation.
11. That "No Parking for Street Sweeping" signs shall be installed prior to
final street inspection as required by the Public Works Executive Director in
accordance with specifications on file with the Street Maintenance Division.
12. That the two proposed cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in conformance
with the City of Anaheim standard details or as otherwise may b~ approved by
the Fire Department and the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
189
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
13. That the developer shall obtain an agreement from the City of Orange for
the disposal of the sanitary sewage from this project into a City of Orange
facility, and shall pay any fees required.
14. That the entrance gate to the project shall provide a minimum 20-foot
wide access as approved by the City of Anaheim Fire Department and the Street
Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
15. That all driveway depths to private garages shall be a minimum of 20 feet
and all such garages shall be equipped with roll-up garage doors as
recommended by the City Traffic Engineer.
16. That the developer shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for
any portion of the proposed structures which may encroach onto the Four
Corners Pipeline Easement running along the southerly boundary of subject
property.
17. In accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 pertaining to
the initial sale of residential homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Area
"B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning
the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the
boundaries of subject tract.
18. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the regulations
pertaining to tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
19. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the units will be
in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California
Administrative Code, Title 25.
20. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy No. 542, Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects.
21. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 11.
22~ That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 7, 13 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
23. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 12, 14, 15 and 21, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
190
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
24. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
granting of General Plan Amendment No. 181 changing the land use designation
to hillside low-medium density residential.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted on Page 1-h of the staff report under number
(7)--No. of Dwelling Units, Code Requirement--62 maximum. That figure was
transposed and the record should indicate 26 and not 62. (The error was
corrected accordingly.)
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Cai Queyrel, Anacal Engineering Company, 1900 East La Palma, Suite 202,
representing the developer, stated a unique piece of property was involved on
which they were requesting to develop 25 units. The property was isolated and
totally separated from any contiguous development. He thereupon described the
location and surrounding land uses. He explained that at the Planning
Commission meeting of February 7, 1983, several concerns were expressed by the
Commission which they subsequently addressed in a Focus EIR (see Focus EIR,
Tentative Tract 10474--made a part of the record). The issues were relative
to sewer capacity, water, traffic on Villa Real and Nohl Ranch Road and land
use (see letter dated February 14, 1983, from Anacal Engineering, which was
part of the Focus EIR addressing each of the concerns). Their findings
indicated that the present sewer system had the capacity to accept the
discharge from the proposed 25-unit development; that a six-inch water main
had been stubbed to the property line to serve the subject property; that it
did not appear that Villa Real would ever come close to reaching its present
capacity; that it was also doubtful that Nohi Ranch Road from Imperial
westerly to Santiago would ever reach its capacity. Further, although current
zoning permitted up to five units per acre, thus allowing the subject site to
develop a maximum of 21 units, the development proposed 25 units which was in
close conformance with the adjacent City of Orange zoning of R-l-6, allowing
two to six dwelling units per acre. Their request to allow 25 units appear to
be fully justified.
In concluding, Mr. Queyrel reported that the units were to be 2400 to 2800
square feet in size and would be sold for slightly over or under ~300,000
each. He thereupon showed a rendering of the project. Relative to an
objection that no central recreation area was provided, he stated that each
unit would have its own spa.
Mr. Dave Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, representing the Presbyterian Church,
the owners of the site, stated they were very fortunate in having found
someone to build a project of the quality being proposed. The Planning
Commission expressed a concern relative to density in the area. Since that
time, the Planning staff submitted a report to the Commission with regard to
densities in the hill and canyon area which mitigated the Commission's
concerns. He did not feel that four units over Code, in this case, was
objectionable.
191
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak, either in favor
or in opposition.
Mr. Jack Hunter, 2674 Villa Real Drive, Orange, representing the Nohl Ranch
Homeowners Association, stated that they were opposed to changing the General
Plan as requested. They were not present at the Planning Commission meeting,
because no one was notified and theirs was the Association surrounding the
project. They were objecting for several reasons. He first read a letter
dated February 23, 1983, from the City of Orange Environmental Review Board
listing five comments relative to Tentative Tract Map 10474, three of which
expressed concern relative to density, quality of the project and traffic
(made a part of the record). He then gave the Association's objections to the
proposed project, which related to increased traffic, density, the fact that
surrounding land uses consisted of single-family detached homes, and the
six-inch sewer was inadequate. They were requesting that the Council vote in
opposition to the proposed project.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing and gave Mr. Queyrel the
opportunity to make his summation.
Mr. Queyrel answered the concerns expressed which he had previously addressed
and which were covered in the Focus EIR.
Councilman Bay asked staff's opinion as to whether or not a six-inch sewer
line was going to be sufficient to serve 25 units the size of the square
footage proposed.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes to allow a
representative of the Engineering Division to be present to answer the
question posed by Councilman Bay. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:10 p.m.)
Mr. Jay Titus, Civil Engineer, stated that the proposed development planned to
tie into an existing six-inch City line which emptied into an eight-inch line
which, in turn, connected to a City of Orange sewer line. His understanding
was that the six-inch line was installed to serve the commercial area to the
north of the proposed development and not the subject development. However,
the capacity in the six-inch line would be adequate to serve the development,
the only question being whether or not there was capacity in the City of
Orange line. It would be the responsibility of the developer to obtain
permission from the City of Orange to use their line, assuming there was
sufficient capacity to service the development.
After further discussion on the issue, Joel Fick, Assistant Planning
Director--Planning, in answer to a question posed by Councilman Bay, referred
to Page 1-k of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 23,
1983, Item 13: "That the developer shall obtain an agreement from the City of
Orange for the disposal of the sanitary sewage from this project into a City
of Orange facility, and pay any fees required."
192
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then explained for Councilman Pickler that
relative to traffic, Villa Real had more than adequate capacity to accommodate
the tract, plus all the other planned tracts along that road° Unfortunately,
it was a very curvilinear road with steep grades. He did not believe the
capacity was the problem, but the geometrics of the road which was originally
designed by the City of Orange.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for hillside
low-density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no.
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and i~, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED°
Councilman Pickier offered Resolution No. 83R-95 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 181, Exhibit A, as recommended. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO.
181, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-95 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-96 for adoption, granting
Reclassification No. 82-83-15, in accordance with the Planning Connnission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-96: A RESOLUTION OF T~IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-15)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-96 duly passed and adopted.
193
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request for removal of three
(3) specimen trees on the basis that a reasonable and practical development of
property on which the trees are located requires the removal of the trees and
that the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect of forestation
will not be materially affected by the proposed removal and that specimen
trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel of an
equal number of trees from a specified list, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked that the Traffic Engineer monitor Villa Real Drive to see if
there were measures that could be taken, such as signing, that would slow
traffic down.
Mr. Singer explained that most of the street was under the control of the City
of Orange. At present, there were speed limit signs and a warning relative to
downhill speed. There were a limited number of traffic controls they could
employ. He would check to see if Orange had an adequateamount of signing as
suggested by the Mayor for a possible subsequent recommendation to their
traffic division.
134/179/185: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 182,
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-21 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-02: To
consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from general
industrial and general open space designation to general commercial and
general industrial on approximately 57.8 acres located north of the Riverside
Freeway, west side of Weir Canyon Road.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, briefed the staff report
to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 1983, relative to the subject
property, an owner-initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current
general industrial and general open space designation to general commercial
and general industrial. The property owner proposed to develop a
commercial/industrial complex. He explained that at the Planning Commission
meeting, there was considerable discussion relative to the proposed uses on
the property, particularly in the commercial area, and the representation made
by the applicant was that the development in the commercial area would be of a
commercial office nature. As a result, the Planning connnission felt that the
designations on both the General Plan and Zoning Map should more correctly
leflect the current thinking of the development in that they should be amended
to a CO designation. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Don Swartz, Hillman
Company, contacted the City and specifically requested that Parcel C, the
peninsula area adjacent to Weir Canyon Road, be redesignated or designated in
accordance with the general commercial designation. In addition, they
indicated that their preference would be that the entire commercial area be
general commercial. He believed that was one of the issues the representative
from SAVI Ranch Associates wished to address today.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-43, recommended
approval of Exhibit A, amended, designating Parcels A, B and C as CO, rather
than CG, as proposed, and, further, pursuant to the provisions of the
194
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
California Environmental Quality Act, deemed it appropriate that the subject
property is covered under Environmental Impact Report No. 230, previously
certified by the City Council on October 16, 1979.
Mayor Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Fick wherein
he explained that the representation made was that the major development would
consist of office uses. In the rectangular area designated general
commercial, that was the currently contemplated use. He understood that
relative to the balance of the property, SAVI was looking at possible retail
uses such as an enclosed restaurant. If the property were designated strictly
as commercial office, there might be a question in the future as to whether
that type of use would be compatible with the General Plan and they could be
back in with a similar type proposal at that time. That was something they
would be addressing in a Master Conditional Use Permit. The difference was,
if designated commercial office, the basic uses permitted on that property
were limited to office type uses and if designated commercial general, the
other uses such as retail uses, enclosed restaurants, a small shopping center,
for example, would be permitted as a matter of right.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-21 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-02:
Application by SAVI Ranch Associates to consider a change in zone from County
A1 to City CL and/or CO(SC) and ML(SC), and Development Agreement No. 83-02,
__ were submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-44, declared
that pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the subject property was covered under Environmental Impact Report No. 230,
previously certified by the City Council on October 16, 1979. The Planning
Commission further granted Reclassification No. 82-83-21 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
2. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
4. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner(s) of subject
property shall dedicate a 10-foot wide east/west equestrian and hiking trail
adjacent to the north property line of subject property. Said trail shall be
improved and maintained in accordance with City standards and specifications
.at the time the property is developed. The owner(s) of subject property
shall, additionally, maintain an interim north/south trail through subject
.... property. Said interim trail shall be located within an existing drainage
channel traversing subject property. Final alignment of the interim trail
shail be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department.
195
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manager.
6. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for new commercial buildings and new industrial
buildings.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That the developer of subject property shall provide appropriate
electrical conduit and substructure systems through Weir Canyon Road and the
bridge over the Santa Ana River to service subject property in accordance with
City of Anaheim electrical utility specifications.
9. That street lights shall be installed along Weir Canyon Road and along all
dedicated streets in the proposed development at the time the property
develops.
10. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance
with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform
Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted
by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any
necessary work.
11. That subject property shall be developed in conformance with the site
development standards of the CO(SC) and ML(SC) Zones. Any deviance from said
standards shall be considered in conjunction with a variance request or waiver
of code requirement under a conditional use permit application.
12. That prior to issuance of building permits or prior to dedication of
public street rights-of-way or prior to construction of any streets, whichever
occurs first, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department.
13. That completion of this reclassification procedure is contingent upon
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 182 changing the land use designations
to General Commercial and/or Commercial Professional and General Industrial.
Approval of Development Agreement No. 83-0~ was also recommended by the
Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. James Erickson, One City Boulevard West, Suite 1900, Orange, representing
SAVI Ranch Associates, stated Mr. Fick had covered their concerns. They had
reached a conclusion on the proposed development that the City would be proud
of. The reason they were anxious to have at least Lot C on which they would
be placing a variety of retail uses, such as a restaurant, zoned for general
196
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.mo
commercial rather than CO, was they preferred not to have to come in each time
for a conditional use permit. The other part of the commercial area was one in
which they currently planned to build a 12-story commercial office on the
north and a 6-story on the south.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing°
At the request of Mayor Roth, who asked for further clarification, Mr. Fick
explained that Parcel C was the small island portion which he pointed to from
the exhibit posted on the Chambers wall consisting of 2.2 acres. That was the
site they were currently contemplating development of a restaurant or some
retail use. When the General Plan and zoning was before the Planning
Commission, Parcel C was not discussed at ailo At that time, Mr~ Swartz was
representing SAVI Ranch Associates and the majority of the discussion was the
office complex° He reiterated, Parcel C was not discussed and since that
time, they indicated commercial preference.
Discussion then followed between Council and staff to clarify the Planning
Commission's recommendation and the request of the property owner relative to
land use designation on the areas involved in the General Plan Amendment.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No.
83R-97 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 183, Exhibit A,
designating areas A, B and C general commercial and area D, industrial. Refer
to Resolution Book~
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO.
1983, EXHIBIT "A~"
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted that the Planning Commission
recommended that areas A, B and C be designated CO or CL. They were going to
a more restrictive control with the General Plan and the loosest and most
easily done was what had just been proposed, Exhibit A. The Planning
Commission tried to exert more control aimed at the Development Agreement.
What he was ready to agree to was part of what the Planning Commission
recommended, to keep A and B commercial office, open up C, the appendage, to
general commercial, with no chan~ to th~ industrial.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that seemed to her what the developers' letter was
requesting°
Planning Director Ronald Thompson confirmed that from the staff's standpoint,
the only reason for their recommendation was that they felt it might preclude
taxpayers having to subsidize some General Plan Amendment in the future. They
were trying to keep that to a minimum. If they conditioned A and B to CO,
they would still retain control and it was not necessary to have two vehicles
to retain that control.
197
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-97 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No.83R-98 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 82-83-21 with Areas A and B designated as commercial
office, Area C commercial limited, and the balance industrial. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING A1YD DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-21)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-98 duly passed and adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
83-02: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council finds that the execution of this Development Agreement would have
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4405: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4405 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4405: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) APPROVING A DEVELOPI~ENT AG1AEEMENT BY AND BE/~WEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~jkrD
SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, (ii) FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND
(iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AN ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY. (83-02)
Mr. Fick stated they would be amending the Development Agreement to reflect
the comments addressed in the reclassification.
134/179: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 178 AND
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-23: To consider an alternate proposal of ultimate
land uses, including general commercial, general open space and combinations
198
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
of these on approximately 50 acres located easterly of the terminus of La
Palma Avenue, bounded on the north by The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway, on the west by Tract No. 9169, and on the south by the Santa Ana
River.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning
Commission dated February 23, 1983, relative to the subject property, a
City-initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current general open space
designation to general commercial and general open space.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution PC83-45, recommended
approval of Exhibit A, designating the area for general commercial and general
open space and, further, deemed it appropriate, pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act, that the subject property is covered
under Environmental Impact Report No. 258, previously certified by the City
Council on December 14, 1982.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-23: Application by the City of Anaheim for a
change in zone from County A1 to City CL(SC)--Shorb Wells.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-46, declared
that the subject property and proposed Reclassification was considered in EIR
NO. 258, previously certified by the City Council on December 14, 1982 and,
further, granted Reclassification No. 82-83-23 subject to the following
condition:
1. That completion of this reclassification procedure is contingent upon
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 178 changing the land use designation
to General Commercial and General Open Space.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Charles Thagard, 2925 West Lincoln Avenue, Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park,
stated that three or four weeks ago, Gfeller Development presented a plan to
develop some of the subject property for a mobile home shelter park. He was
present to speak for the residents of Lincoln Beach and was recommending that
the Council consider the proposal when it was presented to them, the reason
bein~ their park had been s01d and within two years all the residents would be
displaced and had nowhere to go.
Keith DeTintle, 8186 Woodsboro, first stated that he was not informed of the
Planning Commission hearing on the subject. He did not feel that the proposed
commercial land use was in character with the existing residential properties
in the area. Most homeowners purchased homes in that area because it afforded
them the opportunity to locate in a semi-rural area. If utilized for a
mobilehome park, it would add much more traffic and would be inconsistent with
the homes within a 2 1/2 mile radius. He was not opposed to having the
property rezoned for a use consistent with the area, i.e., single-family
homes, or low-medium density.
199
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
Councilman Bay explained that there were a number of single-family homes that
backed up to the site on the west property line. The zoning of the entire
area to general commercial on its first move after annexation was to put it to
its highest and best use and one which would be most profitable to the City.
Whatever development, there would be hearings at the time the specific
developments were presented. He urged Mr. Tintle to stay abreast of the
situation so that he and the people who lived in the area could be heard.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-99 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 178, Exhibit A, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-99: A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO.
178, EXHIBIT "A."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-99 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-100 for adoption, granting
Reclassification No. 82-83-23. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-23, CL(SC)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBER~:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-100 duly passed and adopted.
144: JAIL SITE: Mayor Roth referred to memorandum dated March 15, 1983, to
the City Manager from the Planning Director reporting that the Board of
Supervisors moved to delete the Santa Ana Civic Center site as one of the
study areas for the medium to maximum security jail facility. In addition,
the motion directed the County General Services Agency to prepare an Economic
Feasibility Study for the Coal and Gypsum Canyon Study Area for the dual use
200
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
of a jail facility and a sanitary landfill. The motion was adopted with
Supervisors Nestande, Riley and Clark voting in support, Chairman Stanton
having offered the motion. Supervisor Welder was absent, however, she
submitted a letter endorsing the motion. The two canyons, although currently
outside of the City's boundaries, were still within Anaheim's Sphere of
Influence. He urged the City's citizens to write to their Supervisor, Ralph
Clark, expressing their feelings. One of the two aforementioned sites would
be selected unless there was some way to change the Board's position.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the Council go on record in opposition to
the proposed jail site and sanitary landfill in the Coal and Gypsum Canyon
area. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if a staff report had been
initiated on the impact of a jail site in those areas.
Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, stated there was an interim
report to the County issued when they were looking at Weir Canyon. Subsequent
to that, the Board of Supervisors further directed a study of the subject
site, but no information had been available from County staff.
After further discussion between Council and staff relative to the issue,
Mayor Roth stated that they should go on record today in opposition, with
supplemental information to be supplied by staff at a later date.
City Manager Talley thereupon stated that staff advised him that six weeks
would be a reasonable time to submit a staff report. In his opinion, what the
Supervisors had done was to delete one of the last developable areas of
Anaheim for high income and high prestige areas as a dumping ground for County
problems.
Councilman Overholt asked the Mayor if he would recouch his motion in terms of
their expressing extreme concern and then directing staff to submit a detailed
report which would be the basis for appropriate action by the Council. If
they opposed with no reasoning behind it, it would look that way.
After additional input from Council Members, Councilman Roth called for a roll
call vote on his motion, amended as follows, which was agreeable with
Councilwoman Kaywood in her second: That a letter be sent to the Board of
Supervisors opposing consideration of the Coal and Gypsum Canyon sites which
were in Anaheim's Sphere of Influence, with a comprehensive staff report to be
submitted to the City Council in six weeks relative to the effect of such a
proposal on the City.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
201
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1983, 10:00 a.m.
It was also determined that Council Members Kaywood and Pickler and City
Manager Talley would meet with Supervisor Clark to discuss the issue.
148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONGRESSIONAL CITY CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON,
D.C., MARCH 5 - 8, 1983: Council Members Roth, Pickler and Overholt reported
on their attendance at the subject conference, which ali agreed was extremely
worthwhile and beneficial and the one conference that perhaps had the greatest
impact on doing the most good for Anaheim. It not only provided an
opportunity to meet with the State's Senators and Congressional
Representatives on a one-to-one basis, but also with their staff people, which
was very important, since those were the people the City had to deal with on
the local level.
165: EROSION PROBLEMS - FAIRMONT BOULEVARD: Mayor Roth commended the City
Manager and staff for their expeditious and excellent repair of erosion
problems on Fairmont Boulevard as a result of his request for action at the
previous meeting.
175: UTILITY RATES: Mayor Roth referred to documentation submitted by the
Utilities Department, "Comparison of Electric Bills with March 1, 1983, PCABF
Decrease" (Southern California Edison vs. Anaheim), showing a decrease in
rates for almost all classes, but with an increase in small commercial rates
for those businesses using 500 kWh or 4 percent. That covered most small
businesses in Anaheim. He thereupon requested that staff provide a report as
to why those rates would be higher.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:47 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:18 p.m.)
112: LAMPARTER VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Pickler, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were
authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 33-67-72, Lamparter
vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $150,000. Councilman Bay voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
li2: BLACKWELL VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were
authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 34-10-08, Blackwell
vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $15,000. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:20 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
202